• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HylianTom

Banned
That hot gay stove just got a little bit more enticing, eh?

C'mon, Rubio..
C'mon, Kasich..

..you know you wanna touch it.

As predicted, this issue will continue to give and give. I'm a bit surprised that she got jail.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Acosta said:
Has a Trump/Carson ticket been discussed by any chance?
Click to expand...

I brought up the possibility months ago on the board. Trump hasn't really attacked Carson at all, and he's the guy closest to him. Seems a little too coincidental.
 
Tarkus

Tarkus

Member
Trump speaking live on decision

Attributed statement during 1st debate about not supporting the winning candidate to Trump's feelings of the RNC being unfair to him.

"We will beat the Democrats easily."

"Big fat beautiful open door (at the border)"
 
W

Wafflecakes

Member
Coriolanus said:
Every site for every candidate should have a contact/email button like Jeb's, regardless of state. Hit them. Nothing to lose but a bit of time, anyway.

You just gotta suffer through their sites until you find it, is all.



I like the cut of your jib.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

How is this for an email? Too on the nose?

Hello, my name is Nathan XXXXX, and I am a teacher at a public charter school in the great state of XXXXXXX. I am currently teaching Advanced Placement United States Government & Politics to high school seniors, many of whom are turning 18 this year.

I am interested in trying to increase their desire to become involved politically, and one way that I would like to do this is to expose them to the campaign process more directly by collecting and displaying campaign signs, bumper stickers, etc in my room, as well as providing them to students.

Several candidates have provided materials to our school already, and I would like to have materials available from across the political spectrum, and was inquiring as to whether the Jeb! campaign would be willing to do the same in order to encourage increased participation by our youth.

I hope to hear back from you, and if you have any questions please feel free to call/email.

My phone number is XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

My school's address is as follows:
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Click to expand...

I wish I knew someone in Iowa, so I could pretend to be from there...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
RNC: "Release the ad campaign."

(that applause was rather.. tepid..)

edit:
AAAH! They've already asked Trump about the clerk. He DODGED. Priceless.
 
C

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
The war within the Republican party is pretty amazing to see. I never would have guessed that Carson, Trump and Fiorina would be ahead of the GOP establishment candidates. They really really want an outsider and I love it. Palin scratched some weird itch in these people and I love watching them try to find a replacement.
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Remember that Donald Trump’s loyalty pledge means almost nothing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/03/donald-trumps-loyalty-pledge-means-almost-nothing/?postshare=1851441303348821

At a 2 p.m. news conference Thursday, GOP front-runner Donald Trump is expected to sign a formal pledge crafted by the Republican National Committee that he will not run for president as an independent if he doesn't win the party's nomination.

Which is fine. And a good thing for the RNC, which deserves credit for navigating the murky waters of Trumpworld.

But there is absolutely no reason to think that simply by the act of signing this pledge, Trump will somehow be legally bound to not run as anything but a Republican in 2016. He won't be.

This pledge is not, as my colleague Bob Costa notes, a legally binding document. It's like the sort of pledge you get your kids to sign that they will do their homework, make their beds and eat their vegetables before they can play with your iPhone. It's a statement of intention, but not a binding one.

Do I think Trump is secretly plotting a third party bid if he winds up not winning the Republican nomination? No, not at present. Do I think that Trump believes that he will be bound by this pledge from running if he decides that's what he wants to do? Absolutely not.

What in Trump's relatively short time as a presidential candidate (or much longer time as a person who takes positions on various issues) suggests that he would feel at all compelled to abide by a pledge put together by the head of a party that he is a) only a relatively recent convert to and b) can't really hurt him, financially or otherwise, if he decides to break it?

Trump's entire candidacy is premised on how he doesn't owe anyone anything and how no one can tell him what to do. So, for the moment, it's in Trump's interest to play nice with the GOP establishment -- since it might allay some fears of voters who are thinking about being for him but wonder if he is, actually, one of them.

But if Trump, at any point over the next few months, feels hard done by the GOP establishment -- or if his poll numbers begin to fade -- is there anything in what he will sign today that keeps him from breaking the pledge not to run? No.

Yes, Trump would have to answer for his broken pledge among some Republican voters who took him at his word. But given Trump's anti-establishment message, there would almost certainly be a big chunk of disaffected Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who would likely take his side in a fight with the national party.

Point is: This is a good day for the RNC, which is showing its ability to bring some order to what has been a wild race to date. But don't assume that Donald Trump signing a piece of paper in front of a bunch of cameras is anything more than a nicely-turned bit of political theater. Because, well, it isn't.
Click to expand...
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
If Trump wants to run 3rd party, he'll just claim the RNC broke the pledge first by not agreeing to being fair to him as a candidate.

Trump will not run 3rd party if he loses to someone else "fairly." He'll only do so if he feels slighted, in which case he'll turn the pledge against the RNC and make them look like assholes.

It's win/win for him.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Philip Klein @philipaklein said:
Asked by Fox if Trump is right & he’s dropping out, Rick Perry responds: “A broken clock is right once a day.” Uh...
Click to expand...

Perry just keeps finding new ways to tweak that image of his..
 
N

NeoXChaos

Member
Black Mamba said:
If Trump wants to run 3rd party, he'll just claim the RNC broke the pledge first by not agreeing to being fair to him as a candidate.

Trump will not run 3rd party if he loses to someone else "fairly." He'll only do so if he feels slighted, in which case he'll turn the pledge against the RNC and make them look like assholes.

It's win/win for him.
Click to expand...

Define "fairly" in Trump terms. What does fair and unfair look like to him?
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
Has there been any crosstabs with Trump polling? How can he be doing so poorly with hispanics but performing better than some GOP candidates? Where is he making up the ground.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
The only Ds who haven't decided on the Iran Deal are:

Bennet
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Cardin
Heitkamp
Manchin
Peters
Wyden

They need 5 of them to not even issue a filibuster. Manchin leaning yes. So is Cantwell. That's 38. Need 41.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
ivysaur12 said:
The only Ds who haven't decided on the Iran Deal are:

Bennet
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Cardin
Heitkamp
Manchin
Peters
Wyden

They need 5 of them to not even issue a filibuster. Manchin leaning yes. So is Cantwell. That's 38. Need 41.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised Peters is taking so long. It's puzzling but ultimately I think he'll be a yes.

If I'm Bennett and thinking about possibly becoming VP (lol) for Clinton...I'd vote yes.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
HEITKAMP SUPPORTS THE DEAL YASSSS KWEEN OF THE NORTH FUCK OF SANSA

4Eu7S22.jpg
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
Can't believe Senators from NY and NJ vowed to vote no and put pressure on members from places that are deep red or swing states. Way to look out for your fellow party members you scumbags.
 
T

teiresias

Member
This episode of Fresh Aire on NPR concerning Trump and his appeal to white nationalists and fringe "patriots" is both fascinating and horrifying. It's an interview with the author of an article in The New Yorker I believe. Haver only listened to a few minutes in the car driving to the gym, but I'll be downloading the episode later to listen to.

Thought people may want to give it a listen too, so I thought I'd mention it.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I mean, the absolute worst case scenario from this Iran deal is that, like 25 years from now, Iran becomes the North Korea to Israel's South Korea where Iran has the capability to destroy Israel, but will never do it because it would mean the end of their country.

The GOP contenders comparing Obama to Chamberlain are pretty shameless.
 
U

User1608

Banned
R

RustyNails

Member
ivysaur12 said:
The only Ds who haven't decided on the Iran Deal are:

Bennet
Blumenthal
Cantwell
Cardin
Heitkamp
Manchin
Peters
Wyden

They need 5 of them to not even issue a filibuster. Manchin leaning yes. So is Cantwell. That's 38. Need 41.
Click to expand...
Just saw that Booker supports the deal. NJ can rejoin the union now. All is forgiven.

Fuck schumer tho.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-i...ery-lover-of-liberty-to-stand-with-kim-davis/

“Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny. Today, for the first time ever, the government arrested a Christian woman for living according to her faith. This is wrong. This is not America.

“I stand with Kim Davis. Unequivocally. I stand with every American that the Obama Administration is trying to force to chose between honoring his or her faith or complying with a lawless court opinion.
Click to expand...

God I hate Ted Cruz. He knows very well Davis is wrong. I mean, this is not an actual debatable issue. Even Metageranium wouldn't take her position.

This is why I hate Ted Cruz most of all these guys. He's a pure snake oil salesman. He'll say whatever whenever to try and get what he wants. He knows Kim Davis is wrong. He doesn't believe her. But he will lie, regardless. At least Fuckabee is just an idiot when it comes to this topic.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Fenderputty said:
I hate how the Iran deal is always framed, regardless of if it's for or against, as though it's making America a safer place.
Click to expand...

Iran is such a threat to America. Imagine if Iran launched a nuke against us. Let's ignore the fact that if Iran launched a nuke, we would erase them from the map and thus Iran will never launch a nuke against us. We need to be safer.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Iran is such a threat to America. Imagine if Iran launched a nuke against us. Let's ignore the fact that if Iran launched a nuke, we would erase them from the map and thus Iran will never launch a nuke against us. We need to be safer.
Click to expand...

also ignore the fact that Iran's missile range (currently Sajjil-2 missiles w/ a maximum range of 2000km, with Sajjil-3 missiles w/ maximum range of 4000km allegedly in development) is still nowhere near enough to leave Eurasia, let alone reach North America

anyone saying that's dumb as hell

anyone referring to Middle Eastern geopolitics, on the other hand, is at least on the right track
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Iran is such a threat to America. Imagine if Iran launched a nuke against us. Let's ignore the fact that if Iran launched a nuke, we would erase them from the map and thus Iran will never launch a nuke against us. We need to be safer.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, and I certainly don't want to enter a debate about this, it's not really about Iran nuking us but Iran having a nuke (or nuclear arsenal) does change the dynamics of hegemonic control in the region (a region full of oil!), so it's not like this is actually about them nuking us.

Sure, some people will use that as a scare tactic, but make no mistake, a nuclear Iran is something we'd like to avoid for reasons unrelated to thread of them nuking us.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Black Mamba said:
With all due respect, and I certainly don't want to enter a debate about this, it's not really about Iran nuking us but Iran having a nuke (or nuclear arsenal) does change the dynamics of hegemonic control in the region (a region full of oil!), so it's not like this is actually about them nuking us.

Sure, some people will use that as a scare tactic, but make no mistake, a nuclear Iran is something we'd like to avoid to reasons unrelated to thread of them nuking us.
Click to expand...

Iran does get more leverage with a nuclear weapon, but the idea that a nuclear Iran is going to lead to another Holocaust or mass American deaths is stupidity. I don't want a nuclear Iran either, but the worst case scenario is more comparable to North Korea than Nazi Germany.
 
T

Thequietone

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Iran is such a threat to America. Imagine if Iran launched a nuke against us. Let's ignore the fact that if Iran launched a nuke, we would erase them from the map and thus Iran will never launch a nuke against us. We need to be safer.
Click to expand...
Bu-bu-bu-but it only takes one!11

/s

eBay Huckster said:
also ignore the fact that Iran's missile range is still nowhere near enough to leave Eurasia, let alone reach North America
Click to expand...

Bu-bu-bu-but Israel!111

/s
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Iran does get more leverage with a nuclear weapon, but the idea that a nuclear Iran is going to lead to another Holocaust or mass American deaths is stupidity. I don't want a nuclear Iran either, but the worst case scenario is more comparable to North Korea than Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Of course (though I think the better comparison is actual India or Pakistan or even Israel than NK).

I have no problem with you or anyone telling people who are scaremongering about Iran nuking us how fucking stupid that is.

But a nuclear Iran is a threat to us, just not militarily per se. As always, it's about $$$/power.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Black Mamba said:
https://www.tedcruz.org/news/cruz-i...ery-lover-of-liberty-to-stand-with-kim-davis/



God I hate Ted Cruz. He knows very well Davis is wrong. I mean, this is not an actual debatable issue. Even Metageranium wouldn't take her position.

This is why I hate Ted Cruz most of all these guys. He's a pure snake oil salesman. He'll say whatever whenever to try and get what he wants. He knows Kim Davis is wrong. He doesn't believe her. But he will lie, regardless. At least Fuckabee is just an idiot when it comes to this topic.
Click to expand...
Ted Cruz is a modern day governor Wallace. Segregation forever!
 
F

Fenderputty

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Iran is such a threat to America. Imagine if Iran launched a nuke against us. Let's ignore the fact that if Iran launched a nuke, we would erase them from the map and thus Iran will never launch a nuke against us. We need to be safer.
Click to expand...

They can't even hit us with a nuke, which they may or may not ever get their hands on. I commented on this a couple pages ago, but ICBM's are not an easy thing for countries to make. Getting an ICBM withing striking distance of America even harder without a good navy.

Black Mamba said:
With all due respect, and I certainly don't want to enter a debate about this, it's not really about Iran nuking us but Iran having a nuke (or nuclear arsenal) does change the dynamics of hegemonic control in the region (a region full of oil!), so it's not like this is actually about them nuking us.

Sure, some people will use that as a scare tactic, but make no mistake, a nuclear Iran is something we'd like to avoid for reasons unrelated to thread of them nuking us.
Click to expand...

Basically this. A nuclear Iran just changes the power balance in the middle east. To be honest, If I were Iran and know that Israel had a bunch, I would be trying to build them too.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I don't want a nuclear Iran either, but the worst case scenario is more comparable to North Korea than Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

I don't want a Nuclear Iran either, but mostly that hinges on my not wanting nuclear weapons period. If countries are going to have them for global leverage, it's pretty silly to think we few nations that do hold them are the only ones capable of doing so without wiping another country off the map. We're the moral arbiters of this deal yet we're the only ones who've dropped a nuke on someone.

Black Mamba said:
But a nuclear Iran is a threat to us, just not militarily per se. As always, it's about $$$/power.
Click to expand...

Which was my complaint. It's always framed as a safety, for obvious reasons.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Fenderputty said:
They can't even hit us with a nuke, which they may or may not ever get their hands on. I commented on this a couple pages ago, but ICBM's are not an easy thing for countries to make. Getting an ICBM withing striking distance of America even harder without a good navy.



Basically this. A nuclear Iran just changes the power balance in the middle east. To be honest, If I were Iran and know that Israel had a bunch, I would be trying to build them too.



I don't want a Nuclear Iran either, but mostly that hinges on my not wanting nuclear weapons period. If countries are going to have them for global leverage, it's pretty silly to think we few nations that do hold them are the only ones capable of doing so without wiping another country off the map. We're the moral arbiters of this deal yet we're the only ones who've dropped a nuke on someone.



Which was my complaint. It's always framed as a safety, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, I think your argument is pretty solid. The only real reason to care so much about Iran's nukes is that nobody is supposed to be building nukes, but of course the list of people who are allowed to have nukes is more or less arbitrary (and of course Israel secretly built nukes and we let them).

I do think the deal makes America safer, but primarily I think it does so by reducing the chance that Israel will unilaterally attack Iran and drag us into a conflict in the Middle East we can't possibly benefit from.

So I guess the real diplomatic benefit from the deal is the continued isolation of Netanyahu. But I guess I can see why Democrats don't want to message that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom